(11-09-2014 09:11 PM)Sam Wrote: I don't really get your point... How do you win the argument if you grant them that an unborn fetus is equal to a born baby?

Premise 1: An unborn baby is equal to a new born baby

Premise 2: A newborn baby does not have the right to use the mothers body to keep it alive no matter what and no matter how long IF the mother does not want it to. This means that if it needs an organ or something from the mothers body, it does not have the right to do so. Even in cases of breast milk, the mother is NOT obliged to feed the baby.
Premise 3: An unborn baby is equal to an newborn baby

Conclusion: Therefore, an unborn baby cannot use the mothers body without her consent, even in cases of pregnancy.

Put it this way, if a new-born baby needs an organ transplant or needs to use the mothers body for X amount of time, the mother is not obligated to give up her body. So, if the newborn is equal to the unborn baby (for the sake of the argument, they are equal) then we must conclude that the unborn cannot use the mothers body no matter what for and no matter how long if we grant the unborn baby the same rights as the newborn. Why? because the newborn also does not the right to use the mothers body without her consent no matter what for, or how long.

Excuse me. I haven't read this whole thread so the conversation may have gone in a completely different direction.

Most all of us have the capacity to donate our kidney, a lung, or blood or bone marrow to save the lives of other people who might happen to be a small baby. But shouldn't pro life people be first in line to help those babies even though it might be risky surgery for them? Remembering that this baby will die without the donated tissue or body parts. They want to force women to carry a life to term, maybe right to lifers should be forced into donating part of their bodies. It's only fair.

(15-09-2014 12:15 PM)Chas Wrote: Before there is a brain and nervous system, the fetus cannot feel pain. Therefore, there is no cruelty involved.

Finally an articulated reason on why brain and nervous system development is seen as special.
The problem with the pain argument is that if we determine that the process of birth is more painful than the process of abortion then we would have to determine that we ought to make birth illegal and instead make abortion manditory.
It's absurd I know, but for this reason the argument from "pain" is absurd.

(15-09-2014 12:15 PM)Chas Wrote: Before viability, one can argue that it is not an independent organism and that the mother's rights take precedence.

Scientifically it is an individual organism, it's beside the point whether it is dependant or independant. Even a two year old is dependant, left to its own devices it will die.

(15-09-2014 03:12 PM)Impulse Wrote: I think you may have missed a key part of what I was suggesting (bolded here):
"My suggestion is to define personhood as the moment that a fetus/baby can be removed from the mother's womb and survive on its own and actually does so. It should be able to survive under normal birth conditions, not special machines that replace the mother's function. Then and only then is it a full person."

Yes, I didn't fully understand what you wrote.

That's reasonable, with the proviso that every effort that would be made for any newborn be made.

However, that still overrides the woman's choice.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(15-09-2014 12:15 PM)Chas Wrote: Before there is a brain and nervous system, the fetus cannot feel pain. Therefore, there is no cruelty involved.

Finally an articulated reason on why brain and nervous system development is seen as special.

Since that point has been an integral part of the abortion debate for years, I didn't think it needed spelling out.

Quote:The problem with the pain argument is that if we determine that the process of birth is more painful than the process of abortion then we would have to determine that we ought to make birth illegal and instead make abortion manditory.
It's absurd I know, but for this reason the argument from "pain" is absurd.

Fine, go drink bleach.

Quote:

(15-09-2014 12:15 PM)Chas Wrote: Before viability, one can argue that it is not an independent organism and that the mother's rights take precedence.

Scientifically it is an individual organism, it's beside the point whether it is dependant or independant. Even a two year old is dependant, left to its own devices it will die.

No, scientifically it's not.
"In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system, such as a vertebrate, insect, plant or bacterium. All known types of organism are capable of some degree of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development and self-regulation (homeostasis)."

A fetus fails to meet that definition until late term. That is the definition of viable.

But I'm done here - your lack of empathy and absurd definitions make further discussion pointless.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

Is it OK for a woman to kill her new-born baby?
No? Then is it OK to abort the fetus at 8 months, 29 days?
No? Then is it OK to abort the fetus at 8 months, 28 days?
No? Then is it OK to abort the fetus at 8 months, 27 days?
etc.
OK, when and why is it OK?

When is the fetus a person with rights?

A new born baby? Did you read what I said? The newborn baby is not dependent on the mothers body to live. So what you said is irrelevant.

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

(15-09-2014 04:45 PM)Chas Wrote: Since that point has been an integral part of the abortion debate for years, I didn't think it needed spelling out.

I'm not going to assume your own position on the debate. You are an individual with your own ideas and thoughts.
If we don't lay our cards on the table but instead leave unstated assumptions then we really aren't leading towards an informed discussion.

It's not about my own empathy. I am not looking to force myself, my opinions, my emotions onto other people. I am not the one looking to justify a use of force against a pregnant woman.

If we are using force against a pregnant woman because we feel sad about what what she is doing, then we are overstepping our personal boundaries (IMO).

What I am trying to do is to see what reasons atheist, pro-choicers have to:
1: allow abortions
2: want to force a pregnant woman not to abort after a certain time
3: justify how their position is any different from that of the Catholics (other than an arbitrary judgement on when a "person" begins)

So far you have not offered a valid reason for your position. You've cited personhood (which is circular reasoning and arbitrary)
You've cited pain (which can work against you if the birthing process is more painful than abortion and also if a method of abortion is established that is painless to an unborn.
You've cited "independant organism" but a person on an iron lung or on dialysis or with a pacemaker is still a person, right?

Instead of addressing the issues you resort to attacking me, calling me a liberal and unempathetic.

(11-09-2014 07:21 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote: I will be granting that both the new born and unborn baby have a right to life even though its unsubstantiated. It works either way.

BUT, does the newborn have a right to life at the expense of the mothers body? No matter what the situation and length of time without her consent?

If not, then you have to conclude that the unborn baby doesn't either.
----------------------------------
Premise 1: An unborn baby is equal to a new born baby

Premise 2: A newborn baby does not have the right to use the mothers body to keep it alive no matter what and no matter how long IF the mother does not want it to. This means that if it needs an organ or something from the mothers body, it does not have the right to do so. Even in cases of breast milk, the mother is NOT obliged to feed the baby.
Premise 3: An unborn baby is equal to an newborn baby

Conclusion: Therefore, an unborn baby cannot use the mothers body without her consent, even in cases of pregnancy.

---------------------------------
Consent is to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and consent to pregnancy IS NOT consent to remaining pregnant.

(15-09-2014 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote: Then I will ask you the same questions that no one has answered yet:

Is it OK for a woman to kill her new-born baby?
No? Then is it OK to abort the fetus at 8 months, 29 days?
No? Then is it OK to abort the fetus at 8 months, 28 days?
No? Then is it OK to abort the fetus at 8 months, 27 days?
etc.
OK, when and why is it OK?

When is the fetus a person with rights?

A new born baby? Did you read what I said? The newborn baby is not dependent on the mothers body to live. So what you said is irrelevant.

So answer the fucking question.
When does the fetus become a person?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.